what the heck was that all about?? Explain someone please! - Under Suspicion (2000) Discussion

[–] waltermagic 16 years ago

I beleive that his wife's jealousy is the central concept at play here...It seems that the title indicates that Hearst is an implicated man and , given the apparent theme of misdirection the movie conveys, the suspicion that is most important is that of his wife's. Her misunderstanding of the relationship with him and her neice was evidence of her skewed view of his actions with young girls because she too had developed such a close relationship with him at such a young age, she misunderstood that his role to these other girls would develop into something similar, and she would lose him. Her extreme jealousy tainted her perception of his innocent relationships (even hi-bye or simply pictures, which they turned out to be, of course). These misdrawn conclusions cut off the sex for TWO YEARS, and remember, he IS ENTIRELY INNOCENT...so he was given a life sentence of mistreatment by his wife, and rightfully he felt dejected frustrated, sad, etc...His life had become the sum total of the torture of the "sixty feet of hallway"...probably not an existence he was overly attached to. He knew she was listening and watching and even told her to come face him, she refused. Hearst was given his final rejection by her and he became despondant, because he thought she knew he was telling the truth. She spit when he confessed, because she knew it was the ultimate apology to her for her false accusations of infidelity, and his confession infuriated and hurt her. Guilt/anger kind of response. Well, once the killer had been caught, her eyes were opened to the truth of her insane jealousy and looked to reconcile...but the damage was done. Both, by his confessions, and her selling him out with the pictures. That was the jealousy being "taken this far". She was trying to prove her suspicions correct,and it, well, didn't. He knew his relationship could never be salvaged, now from his perspective, as it was from her perspective before.

His confession was his version of throwing up his hands and saying i can't do this anymore. Fighting. Seperation. Divorce. Infidelity. His confession tone was monotonous, very unlike his previous animated, and obviously true, self. Kinda the tone a child gets when forced to apologize to his child rival/enemy.

Sorry. I talk alot. But once you change the focus from a suspicion of murder to one of EXTREME jealously, it helps. I encourage discussion.

reply

[–] garyd9 16 years ago

When the movie ended, I thought that his wife had either done the murders or hired someone else to do them (someone in another post said she couldn't have raped the girls - but the police said there only evidence of spermicidal lubricant like from a condom - so she could have used an object with a condum on it). The reason I thought she did the murders (or had them done) was his remark about "I can't believe she would go to such lengths" which I thought meant "such lengths [to frame him, to prove he had done something with her niece]". I thought he confessed because he thought she was guilty and he decided to take the rap to save her...because despite everything he still loved her (or possibly he confessed to spite her...kind of like turning the tables on her - now he is in charge calling the shots by confessing). At any rate, I really think they should have done something at the end to clarify what actually DID happen. It's clear that he was innocent and that they caught the guy who actually was guilty...but everything else is not clear at all!

Edit:

...Okay - I just re-watched the ending, and now it IS clear to me that when he said "I can't believe she would go to such lengths", he meant he couldn't believe she would go so far as to dig out the photographs and give them to the police (which as we know isn't exactly what happened). He confessed because he was so devastated by the realization that his wife actually thought he was guilty, that life didn't matter anymore...why not confess, what's the difference (and then he proceeded to just give the police the same details back that they had given him). They definitely caught the actual murderer as they found photos of the first 2 girls bodies in the murderer's car, and they caught him in the act of killing the 3rd girl. He was definitely NOT hired by the wife - she spit on the mirror when he confessed because she thought he was guilty...so, I guess everything actually WAS clear afterall - you just have to dig it out a bit.

Recap of all facts:
1. Gene Hackman not guilty of murders
2. His wife did not do them nor hire someone else to do them
3. The police did arrest the real, actual murderer
4. Gene Hackman confessed because of the utter despair he felt over realizing that his wife actually and totally thought him capable and guilty of raping and killing young girls

2nd edit:

One more thing...unless this is the first mystery movie they've ever seen - everyone who watched this movie HAD to know from the beginning that Gene Hackman was NOT guilty. Who would watch a movie where the character is made to look guilty from the very beginning of the movie until the end - if it then turned that out that he WAS guilty? How would that be an interesting story...what studio would finance and shoot THAT movie? It appears that several people in this forum never saw the possibility that his wife could have been guilty - when I think most people had to be thinking it was the wife or someone else from the beginning. (When the wife went to their house with the detective - for a moment I thought it was going to turn out that the two of them were having an affair, and were framing the husband to get rid of him.)

reply

[–] malexlantz 16 years ago

Watch the commentary on the movie. He felt so bad that his wife didn't love him anymore, so he didn't want to live anymore, so he gave a false confession so he could go to prison for the rest of his life. By acting like he was guilty, he got all the information he needed to make himself look guilty.

reply

[–] hagerp 16 years ago

It's 2.

The only quibble I have with the movie is that an attorney - someone well versed in the law - would not have lawyered up. However, the fact is that false confessions are surprisingly common. All of the elements for a false confession were present, except that the confessor is upper class, which is a bit anomalous. The first big hint that the eventual confession was false was the reaction to the statement that the victims were raped and murdered. The surprise was genuine - and nicely performed by Hackman. Other details of the murders were revealed to the lawyer in the course of the back-and-forth mind games, and the lawyer later supplied them during his "confession". This is all typical with false confessions.

Here are some links:
http://www.llrx.com/features/falseconfessions.htm

http://www.criminaljustice.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/4a6e9aa597092057052573ed0056ffa3?OpenDocument

I think this is a good movie for a class in both criminal justice and psychology.

reply

[–] rugerbear15 16 years ago

I understand the whole point to the movie & everything.... The only thing I don't understand is how did they get the pics of the murders from HIS dark room? Or were those the police pictures and they just told him they found them in his dark room!?

Close your mouth and let your eyes listen!

reply

[–] CmdrCody 16 years ago

ruggerb: Sorry. You're confused. Hearst did not have pictures of the girls' murdered bodies. He had earlier pictures of the girls when they were live, breathing and living in hope. It was one of a set of amazing coincidences that made Hearst look like a probable perv kiddie killer.

CmdrCody

reply

[–] rugerbear15 16 years ago

Oh! Okay I understand the WHOLE thing now. Thanks for the help!

Close your mouth and let your eyes listen!

reply

[–] dannyvazmon1 15 years ago

I don't understand why there would be any confusion on the ending. It was basically spoon fed to the audience.

1.They clearly said they caught the killer "in the act" (can it be any more clear?) and also happened to find pictures of all three dead girls in the killer's car, directly tying him to the first two murders. Case closed. That simple.

2.The pictures that they found in Hank's dark room where of the girls while still alive. Considering his hobby was photography and literally had dozens of boxes filled with pictures that he took around the island, it is not unusual that he had pictures of the girls playing in the playground. La Perla is literally right next to Old San Juan where Hank lived, so Hank and the two girls were almost practically neighbors.

3. Hank's wife had nothing to do with the murders and she did not "frame" him. When Hank started "confessing", she gasped in surprise and felt so disgusted that she started to cry and spat into the glass of the room where Hank was. Then at the end when everything is over she trys to hug Hank. There was no indication that she tried to frame him for murder.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jambawala 8 years ago

You refer to a "Hank" in your points numbered 2 and 3. There is no one called Hank in the movie.

Of course there is confusion. The story had MASSIVE plot holes, the size of planets. The biggest one is your point number 2.

Firstly, it's LITERALLY an unbelievable coincidence that the Hearsts would have photos of the two girls who died. Unless they had the photos of every girl around that age in Puerto Rico, that simply does not fly as 'just a conincidence'. According to the Pew Research Center, there were over three million people living in Puerto Rico in the year 2000, when this film is presumably set (given its date of release). See the following link for proof: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/24/historic-population-losses-continue-across-puerto-rico/ Again, unless they had photos of all these three million people, it just does not fly that the one murder suspect the police have in custody conveniently has photos of both the murder victims in his home, but somehow, in the end, was not connected to their murders at all.

Secondly, not only do the Hearsts have the photos of the girls who died, but Henry freaking finds the dead body of the second murder victim. WTF?!

Thirdly, he's a big-shot lawyer, obviously successful and considered to be a top professional tax attorney in all of Puerto Rico. Somehow, his memory of this shocking murder find and the events that led up to it becomes suspiciously fuzzy and his manner of recounting the events becomes totally clumsy. Again, if one stops to think about this for a minute, it's not believable.

When the movie posits an ending that is so awfully fake and unbelievable, that you wonder if an entirely different script writer wrote the ending without reading what preceded it, then yes, there is plenty of cause for confusion on the ending.

reply

[–] blushift4 8 years ago

jambawala:

I won't argue with you over plot conditions that can be said to be 'LITERALLY an unbelievable coincidence', but I will take issue with your apparent dismissal of this movie as unworthy of watching. Conditions (or coincidences) like the ones in this movie occur all the time in most Hollywood movies, even the really good ones. Most people accept this as part of 'movie reality', and acknowledge that while these are incredibly unlikely, they serve to fulfill conditions for the story being told. Name any movie you like, and you will find events that take place in it which would be ridiculous or unbelievably coincidental in the real world.

You talk about 3 million people living in PR, but the story doesn't concern itself with the entire population of PR, just those living in San Juan and Perla. Mainly, it's concerned with 11-12 year old girls (who would be considered beautiful) in the general area of where Hearst lives. Since he has a proclivity to photo attractive young girls (out of an undercurrent of sexual desire) it is not such a coincidence that he may have photographed the two victims before they were killed. It is perhaps too coincidental that he happened to find the 2nd victim's body, but, again, Hollywood movie reality. The story is designed to make the viewers align their opinion with that of the detectives (from early in the film) that this guy is a slimy child murderer, so the circumstantial evidence is laid on thick by the screenwriter.

As for his lies in testimony about finding the body, and his activities with young girls, he is (intentionally) evasive, since he does find these girls attractive sexually, and subconsciously abhors this part of his nature, feels guilty about it, and doesn't want it to become public. So in many ways, he's guilty from the first scene of the movie, he's just not guilty of murder.

Finally, Hank is a shortened form of Henry (the lead character's name is Henry Hearst). Near the end, the Captain mentions that he had pulled records from the Hearst's ISP, and found he used the chatroom name 'HardbodyHank' - another degrading and implicating fact the investigation reveals about Hearst's hidden nature.

reply

[–] jambawala 8 years ago

Hi blushift,

I am not sure I explicitly stated that the film is unworthy of watching. Sometimes an enjoyable ride justifies a poor ending. However, I am not sure the ride is all that enjoyable. I do believe the ending and major plot elements are unworthy of a powerful premise and powerful casting.

You seem to feel there is a shared 'movie reality' for all movies and this doesn't make sense to me. I judge if a film makes sense based on the reality each film paints. For instance, The Matrix is far-fetched compared to our current understanding of the real world but within its own narrative universe, I take no issue with any of the plot elements.

If you notice carefully in the dark room scene, there are recordings and photos of many descriptions. Not all the photos are of pre-pubescent girls. And where is the indication that he has a specific proclivity to photograph 11-12 year-old girls? Where is the indication that he was just taking photos within San Juan and Perla? And even if that were the case, that's two whole cities worth of photos (including the capital). The fact that photos of both the murdered girls were found in the Hearst home remains a totally inexplicable and unbelievable coincidence. And, on top of that, he finds the second victim's body?! The movie might as well have had Henry's DNA all over the murder victims to have the 'viewers align with their story' and then say, "Just kidding!". That would be just as believable.

You state that Henry is into pre-pubescent girls as if it is fact - but I am not sure that is the case. The incident with his sister-in-law's daughter seems to point the needle regarding his inclinations squarely in the opposite direction. He was shown to have been having innocuous fun with the girl and his wife's reaction was unwarranted. In fact, her belief in his culpability forms the crux of her guilt in the final scene. In that context, Henry's evasiveness and clumsiness make little sense.

I appreciate the factoid about the Henry/Hank connection. Odd having a four-lettered short-form of a five-letter name.

reply

[–] blushift4 8 years ago

OK, a lot of people don't really pay attention to the numerous holes in most movie plots, because the cinematography, acting, and general storytelling taking place in any 'good' movie will distract us from perceiving the holes. I often don't notice them myself.
But, since you mentioned The Matrix (a movie I enjoyed myself), take it for an example. What kind of reality does it paint? One where holes like these
http://www.movieplotholes.com/the-matrix-plot-holes.html make sense?

The first one listed: Trinity tells an agent to 'Dodge this', while pressing a gun to the Agent's head. Since the reality painted by the movie is that Agents can dodge bullets, and bullets in this reality apparently move with the same speed as they do in real life, how is the Agent powerless to dodge this bullet, especially after Trinity pauses long enough to say her line before pulling the trigger? The answer is simple, because they wanted to make the scene 'cool' and have Trinity say something bada$$ before shooting him. Reality in any movie really doesn't have any relation to anything that can be called 'real'. Even the reality set up by movies themselves are constantly manipulated in ways that don't make sense and are never explained, it's the nature of imagination and storytelling.

Your view of movie reality seems a little skewed. I don't say this as an insult, mine is, too (along with everyone else). But, when you demand a certain sense of reality from one particular movie, while giving many others a pass on this same requirement, I wonder how you are selecting movies that you feel 'make sense based on the reality each film paints'. I will agree that there are some movies that simply push the 'willing suspension of disbelief' too far for me to really enjoy them, but Under Suspicion is not one of those.

Movies are all BS in numerous ways, the only thing that makes a movie worthwhile is the story itself, how entertaining it is, and (for me personally) whether it makes you think about it after the credits roll. Under Suspicion certainly does that.

reply

[–] jambawala 8 years ago

blushift - I agree with your first point. 'Good' films (apostrophes because this is subjective) often dazzle us enough with high-quality story-telling such that plot holes cease to be.

I checked out the movie plot holes link you posted for The Matrix. ALL of the 'plot holes' feel like desperate reaches to me. In the very example that you describe, i.e. the "Dodge this" moment, Trinity has her gun pressed right against the Agent's temple. The whole point of her posturing with that catchphrase was to demonstrate there was little the Agent could do from that distance. The reality demonstrated by the movie up to that point is that Agents can dodge bullets given the right circumstances, not a blanket, 'All Agents can dodge bullets all the time'.

Even the major and super plot holes listed in your link are overly presumptuous at best. One plot hole totally ignores the intense emotions that a character is experiencing in a life-or-death moment and another plot hole assumes too high a level of scientific knowledge of the dystopic universe that The Matrix is set in.

If a film doesn't make sense while you're watching it, there's one of two reasons, in my opinion. Either you 'didn't get it' or the film is 'not good'. Again, the apostrophes signal the subjectivity at play here because in a way, both sentiments may be the same to the individual viewer. Keeping that in mind, I can say with no hesitation that at no point while watching The Matrix did I say, "Wait - this doesn't make sense." Or, to use this thread's title, "What the heck was that all about??". You can bet I said that a few times after I finished watching Under Suspicion.

After I watched Under Suspicion, the fact that certain plot contrivances made no sense to me compelled me, and others, to write about them on IMDB. For The Matrix, you had to google "The Matrix plot holes" to find any plot holes. Just between us, this point alone indicates a differential between the two films.

Bringing it back full circle to your first point, I get the feeling that you genuinely consider Under Suspicion to be a 'good' movie, which (paraphrasing your thoughts) may have allowed you to overlook certain gaps that others found noticeable. Like I mentioned earlier, this is a film with a powerful premise and a powerful cast and I felt shortchanged by the plot contrivances. I'd love to know why you think this is a good movie and bridge the gap between me and this film so I may possibly appreciate it more.

reply

[–] blushift4 8 years ago

Oh, as to Henry's fondness for young girls, he admits to this himself in a scene where he is questioned near the end of the film and is backed into a corner over the huge number of photos of young girls they found in his collection.

He says something to the effect of, "So what if I find young girls attractive, a lot of men do, I just have the guts to admit it."

I remember this specifically because I just saw the movie yesterday, which is what drove me here to the discussion board for the film (never saw it before).

reply